Are Atheists Able to Know Reality from Delusion?
Debate Rounds (4)
Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.
If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.
if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
If I can't prove my case and you can't prove religious people can know reality then none of us have fulfilled our burden of proof and this debate should be a tie. Also your arguments such as not trusting our senses also are good arguments for why religious people also can't know reality from delusion too. So your arguments are self-refuting and shows that your assumption that only atheists have this problem is wrong.
Either our senses are correct or they are not, so evidence against them being incorrect is evidence they are correct, and visa verse. You never said I have to prove my case so I will only show why it is more likely that our senses are correct than otherwise.
My first argument is we can use Occam's Razor which is that the simplest explanation is the most likely. What we see being real instead of an elaborate hoax is the simplest explanation and most likely.
Second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the delusion theory is more extraordinary and without evidence it is less likely.
Third, our senses perceive extreme detail in every nook and cranny and such detail is less to be a fabrication.
Fourth, complex fabrications are very likely to have mistakes and we can't find any bugs in the problem or logical flaws in the dream.
Fifth, we can verify separate senses and separate observations with each other and test them against each other.
If everything was an elaborate hoax we wouldn't be presented with ideas that it could be false like this very debate.
Tell us how you know your senses are valid?
How do you know Occam's Razor is a way to know truth? Your senses did not tell you this, which defeats refutes your own sense-base epistemology. I accept your concession of defeat.
How do you know "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Again, your senses did not tell you this, so you are again refuting your own epistemology. And how do you what an "extraordinary claim" is? And this is actually nonsense, for any claim merely requires sufficient evidence, no matter what you think of the claim.
Which of your senses told you that your senses perceive in extreme detail, whatever that is, what is a complex fabrication, that it has mistakes, etc. And which of your senses told you detail is less likely to be a fabrication? If you cannot tell me which sense, you have again refuted your own view.
And to verify your senses with the supposed senses of others cannot be done without using your senses. To verify your senses with your senses is to irrational beg the question.
I am still waiting on your rational method of knowing truth from fiction. Good luck. Your first effort was a bust.
Occam's Razor isn't based on the senses and was actually developed by a mathematician and is based on logic. Say that you are walking and see your shoes untied. Keep in mind I am not saying this actually happened, I am only giving you a hypothetical thought experiment. What is more likely, that they came undone by themselves or that someone secretly untied them while your were walking? Obviously the former is because it most simply lines up with the evidence without making assumptions. What about the theory that aliens untied my shoes? This makes even more assumptions and is even less likely. This theorem works because more complicated explanations make more assumptions and if they lack evidence this makes them less likely.
For another thought experiment lets say I told you I found a cat in my yard. You would probably believe me. If I said I found an alien in my yard, you wouldn't even be satisfied by seeing a picture. This is because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is true for a similar reason as Occam's razor. More extraordinary claims tend to make more assumptions, which make them less likely if they are not confirmed.
To say that our senses aren't real requires an elaborate hoax where every detail was constructed to fool us, and it is so perfectly designed that there aren't any mistakes. There are a ton of assumptions here, including the assumption there is a real world beyond the one we experience.
We can also use prediction testing. If our senses are correct we can make predictions that our senses and observations should match and they are consistent. If these predictions are confirmed this makes the theory of our reality more likely.
His attack on my arguments is literally just one sentence:
>> You said you use your senses, but then proceeded to refute your own epistemology by relying on claims that are not based on senses.
I relied on Occam's Razor and the Extraordinary Claims arguments which are based on logic and the idea that extraordinary or more complex claims that aren't based on evidence are less likely because they have more assumptions. These logical arguments show why it is more likely that are senses are accurate than that they are not. I only have to show that my position is more likely, to have the more convincing arguments.
There are three scenarios for senses being inaccurate:
1: World is a planned fabrication.
2: Everything is an unplanned dream or complete delusion.
3: Some of our experiences are real, and some are delusions.
The two arguments I mentioned above refute them. We can refute #3 by testing different senses with each other and testing experiences with different ones. This is not circular because each sense and experience is different and since some are correct we would eventually find a correct one and it would contradict a fabricated one. For example if you asked people you know if your teddy bear friend is real eventually someone would deny he can see it.
Unfortunately con has been unable to satisfy his burden of proof that atheists even exist to make his negative claim about them, and that atheists should be singled out. I was never required to prove that the senses are accurate and so only attempted to show that it is more likely they are accurate, to establish my position being more likely to be right than con's.
I consider my arguments to be very convincing but if you the voter disagree, at least I tried to defend my claim, and con failed to really respond to my arguments. Con didn't even try to defend his burden of proof so because I was the only one who really debated I should win this debate, or in the very least get a tie.
Also, con has resorted to name-calling which is a violation of conduct on this site and should lose on conduct. I do thank con for sticking through this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kove_Ducote 5 days ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to provide further arguments during the later rounds.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.